Points of Order

Celia Barlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on introducing the Bill and on successfully piloting it to Third Reading. It is clear that much time and erudition has gone into the Bill, which addresses a concern of vital importance to local communities and our nation as a whole.
	As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I declare a special interest in the Bill. It is good to see that some points that had been for only theoretic discussion are now ready for implementation. It will also delight thousands of my constituents who have raised with me the threat of climate change on the doorstep, in letters and emails and at local meetings. I am more than happy to represent their concerns here today not just because I share them, but to make real decisions in order to act against that man-made danger.
	In my speech, I shall address two very important points that are included in this Bill. First, I wish to talk about micro-generation. Then I will come to the parts of the Bill tackling sustainable housing, inserted after Second Reading in November, namely clauses 12 to 14. Microgeneration has a particular relevance to the fight for a sustainable energy policy. That is particularlytrue of section 4, which covers national targets. Microgeneration has been sadly neglected in public discourse, which tends to favour the big projects of renewable energy like wind farms, large solar panels and hydroelectric plants. However, microgeneration has the potential to contribute not just to people's energy needs, but to the way in which a community perceives and interacts with our power generation process.
	In the Committee's recent report, called "Keeping the Lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change", we stated that our electricity generating network was based on a relatively small number of large generating plants situated in remote locations.

Celia Barlow: The right hon. Gentleman makes avalid point. However, the targets for cutting carbon emissions are still there and the Government are doing all that they can to reach them.
	The Committee found that electricity losses on the UK grid system are in the order of 10 per cent., while the efficiency of coal power stations can be as low as 35 per cent. We suggested that there should be more intelligent solutions. Flows of electricity could be in both directions, depending on local demand. The Committee suggested that microgeneration offered potentially huge improvements in energy efficiency, particularly in the case of combined heat and power.
	Another recent report by the Sustainable Consumption Round Table produced some pertinent findings. For example, microgeneration vastly increases people's awareness of the entire energy production and consumption chain. The result of that awareness is that people tend to become much more concerned not only with the production of energy, but with the conservational aspects, and that is surely a good thing. It would be a mistake to underestimate the significance of those educational side effects of microgeneration. It is surely a regret of many hon. Members that successive Governments have been unable to instil into the public consciousness the urgent need for energy conservation, and the fact that individuals really can make a difference.
	I acknowledge the significant contribution ofthe co-operative movement to developing and implementing the technology in many innovative ways that will surely benefit our society as we learn more about the potential of those systems. Micro-generation eradicates the gulf between energy producers and consumers, and that can only be a good thing, as today most people have no idea at all where their energy comes from. In an age when Governments around the world and every significant scientific body are urging a shift in energy production techniques to safeguard our very existence, that is simply unacceptable.
	Given all those benefits, the Committee came to the conclusion that support from the Government was not overwhelming. We found that the technology was reasonably well developed and only needed to be scaled up to industrial production in order to reduce unit costs. Investment was needed, as well as physical and regulatory issues surrounding installation.
	Yes, there has been progress: the Energy Act 2004 put an obligation on the Government to come up with a microgeneration strategy. The Department of Trade and Industry published a microgeneration strategy a few weeks ago. In his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed a further£50 million to the low carbon building programme for offices and social housing.
	Obviously, I welcome those initiatives as good steps in the right direction, but there is still a lot more to be done, and I have to agree with my colleagues on the Committee who complained about a lack of urgency on the Government's side, especially when it comes to private housing. The Bill's provisions for national microgeneration targets are therefore the best way forward. I am not a great fan of targets, but in this case I see no alternative that would provoke the scale and swiftness of response—

Michael Weir: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I offer our condolences to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). It is sad that, due to tragic circumstances, he cannot be here to see his Bill progress. Both parties strongly support the Bill as an important step forward on tackling climate change.
	It is true that the UK Government have set targets on climate change under Kyoto, but they have slipped somewhat. The Scottish Parliament has set somewhat more ambitious targets. It is important that we have cross-party consensus on climate change, and we must start by recognising that climate change exists and that it is a man-made problem—even getting there would be an important step forward.
	I was pleased that earlier this year, five Opposition parties got together to announce common principles on climate change and to recognise those basic points. That was important because although it is all very well for us to agree, when we get into the cut and thrust of an election campaign, such agreements often break down because it is politically expedient to attack a Member's support for a wind farm, higher fuel duty, or anything else in their constituency. That affects all parties, so we need to agree common aims and not use the matter as a political football. All too often, a Government come up with an idea to tackle climate change, but if their policy is changed at the next general election when another Government come in, we will have no long-term stability on tackling climate change, which we all must seriously examine.
	There will be disagreements. The current energy review may recommend new nuclear power stations. There are some who argue that such stations can help to deal with climate change. I strongly oppose that approach. However, it is a legitimate argument about a particular issue. My view is that the use of nuclear power is putting one problem in place of another. There is no solution in dealing with nuclear waste, as shown by the recent Quorum report. However, there are many things that we can do. Wind, for example, seems to cause so many problems, and we are not confined to wave energy.

Nick Hurd: I, too, rise to support the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on his tenacity in building consensuson it. However, the House should be honest in acknowledging that it is a quite modest measure. It will certainly not transform the landscape of domestic climate change policy. For that, we need to look to the bigger beasts: the outcome of the energy review that the Minister is conducting and, critically, the decision taken on the national allocation to the second phase of the EU emissions trading scheme this summer. A recent report by the National Audit Office to the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the latter as the policy decision that would have the greatest impact on carbon emissions reduction in the short term. Those will be the real tests of the appetite of the Government and the House for reducing carbon in our economy.
	The Bill is welcome, however, because it takes a small, positive step in the direction of promoting greater accountability to the House on the progress made in tracking carbon through the economy and the progress of the Government in reducing it, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) rightly pointed out. A second important step will beto force central Government—and, to a lesserextent, local government—to think more about microgeneration and energy efficiency.
	The increase in accountability will be hugely important, because the lack of accountability is undermining the effectiveness of the international process to reduce carbon. Many countries will not meet their Kyoto targets, yet they will suffer very few penalties for that failure. This country probably will meet its Kyoto targets, although , as the Government now acknowledge, there are significant doubts about the 2010 target, and there is complete uncertainty about the 2050 target. It is very difficult for the House and all other interested parties to get to grips with the reality of how carbon tracks through the economy, and with the probability of success for the various policy measures that the Government are implementing. That makes it difficult for us to hold the Governmentto account.
	The desire for greater accountability, transparency and rigour in the review process underlies the cross-party consensus—on the Conservative Benches, at least—in suggesting the creation of an independent body, which could add tremendous value to the ability of the House to understand what is really happening with emissions and to assess the probability of success in meeting the longer-term targets. I suspect that that would have a much greater impact than the measures introduced in the Bill, but I welcome what is on offer today.
	I echo the sentiments on microgeneration expressed by the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Environmental Audit Committee. Microgeneration has the potential to play three important roles at a time when energy policy must necessarily shift from focusing only on the cost of energy to considering the more complex set of issues with which the Minister is wrestling, including security of supply and the impact on climate.
	The sources of energy and technology that we are considering under the banner of microgeneration will have three important benefits. The first is reducing carbon. The second is reducing the waste of energy in our system. It was pointed out in Committee and in the debate that, if we are to believe the reports, two thirds of our energy is wasted between the point of production and the point of consumption. If it is true, that statistic ought to be a matter of considerable concern to the House in a new energy age in which security of supply, efficiency and affordability will become increasingly pressing issues. The third benefit, as the hon. Member for Hove pointed out, is that microgeneration will bring people closer to their source of energy. The evidence is that, where that happens, it is successful in changing attitudes to demand and to energy conservation.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend may be aware that clause 11 entails adding to the building regulations a particular category on
	"the production of heat or the generation of electricity by microgeneration".
	That provision incorporates the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle.

Martin Horwood: I am not sure whether it does. The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the very clause that originally contained the renewable heat obligations—a concrete measure that would have provided the market with a specific stimulus. Clause 21 is a limp alternative to that provision, but its inclusion is nevertheless welcome.
	I was comparing the advantages of microgeneration with the disadvantages of nuclear power, and re-examining the need to subsidise nuclear power. The new Finnish nuclear power station is not an exampleof clean green technology. It may requireenormous guarantees from the Finnish Government on the funding of the power station's eventual decommissioning and long-term waste disposal. The Energy Policy Act was introduced in the USA last year. It provided some $14 billion of subsidies to the nuclear industry. A microgeneration-led approach would not require such subsidies.
	One of the welcome aspects of the Bill is that it uses imaginative incentives and the easing of red tape to encourage renewable generation and microgeneration without large-scale public subsidy. That will encourage private sector enterprises such as Solar Smart in my constituency, which offers a pioneering integrated approach to solar-thermal power. The approach involves the integration of solar panels into the supply of not only hot water, but domestic heating, which is an innovation. That is an example of how the microgeneration industry will reveal more potential than we now realise, if it is stimulated, which will enable a safer and more efficient energy supply industry.
	I recently engaged in a debate with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) in which he suggested that energy supplies, green issues and tackling climate change were a gentle, quality of life issue. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we must remember that climate change is a real threat to not only our quality of life but to the existence of our economy and, in many cases, to our society as we know it. I have tried to find some sources to persuade even the sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches of the urgency of this matter.

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I completely agree that we should not be put off by the cost. If we had been put off by the cost of early computers and concluded that they would never make a contribution to business or to the consumer, we would never have engaged in the research and development that has resulted in their being so indispensable today. I am absolutely certain that the costs will fall. We should take a dynamic view of the state of technology. It is evolving very rapidly. The example that I cited uses solar power to generate electricity rather than to heat water, which is much more flexible, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, and allows it to be transferred, in effect, from the house in which it was generated to the national grid and to other houses in the vicinity.
	It is particularly admirable that the constituent to whom I referred is the deputy head of a very good junior school, St. Paul's in Rusthall in my constituency. I know from my postbag, and I am sure that other hon. Members find, that young people are among the most interested in the technology of new sources of energy and the concerns about climate change that we all address in our correspondence with them, and it is particularly good to have a role model.
	I now turn to some specific aspects of the Bill, which I welcome. It was watered down in Committee to a regrettable extent. Nevertheless, it represents progress. It takes a step forward in energy policy by recognising the contribution of microgeneration.
	Microgeneration makes a contribution in several ways, which I commend to the House and which the Bill reinforces. First, it contributes to the heating of space and water, as we have seen in the case of the gentleman in my constituency whom I mentioned. That contribution is tangible, immediate and it is not years away from development. Given that the heating of space and water accounts for a considerable proportion of national annual energy consumption—higher, indeed, than the proportion accounted for by electricity consumption—that is important. Secondly, the model of microgeneration has the potential to overturnthe centralised approach to electricity generation,which, as we know, involves enormous costs in therunning of transmission and distribution systems. Microgeneration is taking us into a new paradigm, and it is good that the Bill recognises the progress that we are making here.
	Thirdly, combined heat and power, although it has not had the full support that we hoped it would have, is recognised in the Bill. The great advantage of microCHP is that it is ready to go, it is nonintermittent, which is important, and it requires no planning permission or special infrastructure to be established. Solar panels are, of course, all very well and wind turbines can make a contribution, but they are intermittent. If we are to make a step change in renewable energy, we need to be able to generate a base load of dependable energy generation, on top of which we can add the intermittent sources. The great advantage of CHP and microCHP is that, because they are nonintermittent, they can provide the foundation on which some of the solar and other renewable energy sources can build. Finally, it is important to recognise that microgeneration may have a vital role to play in the eventual emergence of a hydrogen economy. We know that there are problems with the electrolytic production of hydrogen and its distribution. That may mean that the best model for hydrogen power is local and decentralised. The microgeneration initiatives that the Bill supports open a new paradigm that may be instructive.
	We all know that energy policy is subject to constant change, not least because of the rapidly developing technology. It is important that we keep pace with that. I hope that this will not be the last Bill that comes before the House and brings us up to date. I commend the Bill for taking the first steps in that direction. It signals perhaps the end, notwithstanding the current energy review, of what we may call the Jurassic age of energy policy, when massive decisions about massive generating plants and distribution mechanisms were taken by a small number of people, including the Minister for Energy and his predecessors. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I hope that it will not be possible for our energy policy to be determined by a single individual, but that it will be determined, in effect, by the individual decisions of millions of consumers of energy across the country.

Shailesh Vara: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on introducing the Bill and express my condolences to him and to his family on their recent sad loss? I am pleased that, despite him not being with us, the Bill will, I hope, be able to progress.
	The issue at hand is, of course, important and fundamental for the wellbeing of mankind. We have had a considerable amount of rhetoric on the subject but it is fair to say that action has been limited. I hope that, with this Bill, that will change and that action will progress. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who is not at present in his place, when he agreed with the comments of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the "Today" programme earlier today. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped to see greater cooperation between Departments, particularly with the new Secretary of State for Transport and the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. That, of course, is in stark contrast with previous experience, when DEFRA has always taken second place in a debate with another Department.
	I am keen to emphasise that I am not in the business of point scoring, particularly in this very important debate, but I think it important to recognise that there has been considerable opposition to the Government's approach to this issue, if only in recent weeks. The closure of the four centres of ecology and hydrology, which were engaged in research on the environment and climate change, is a case in point. They were closed, so it was said, in order to save money. Some£45 million was supposedly saved, a figure with which I disagree. But even if one accepts that there are savings to be made, we have to recognise that in the scheme of things—

Gregory Barker: I am sorry that the debate has finished on that rather disconsolate note. I could not disagree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on these issues, but he has every right to air them. It always does one good to hear one's views tested by argument, so perhaps he has performed a service in that regard.
	The debate has been constructive and we have seen the House of Commons at its best, with some insightful speeches from both sides of the Chamber. If I had to pick out only one thing from them, it would be the welcome emerging cross-party consensus—not a love-in but a challenge to each other to go further, to drop our preconceptions and think outside our party boxes when tackling climate change. That has to be a good thing.
	There is widespread concern across the House about the need to mainstream many of the new technologies that are still in their infancy but which clearly have much to offer us in tackling the effects of climate change and steering us away from a carbon economy. In particular, there is widespread support for microgeneration, which offers huge potential, but if we are to realise that decentralised vision of electricity generation we will need to do much more than adopting the measures in the Bill. We shall need to look in more detail at the remit of Ofgem. We shall need to look at easing restrictions on private wire systems, such as happened in Woking, and at making the renewables obligation more sympathetic to smaller generators and consumers. All those things are very important and very much within the purview of the forthcoming energy review, which, I hope, will not just be a mono-focus exercise on the nuclear industry, but go much wider than that.
	As I said, there have been many excellent contributions, which started with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who pointed out that the Government's language is very supportive of the Bill, but that they will be judged on their action and how they implement it if it passes on to the statute book, following its passage through the House of Lords. He also raised concerns about the energy sector, with the need for a clearer framework for attracting the long-term investment from the private sector that is crucial in combating climate change.
	The hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), who is not in her place now, and who is a distinguished member of the Environmental Audit Committee, also pointed out the huge benefits of microgeneration and CHP. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) spoke of the impact of climate change on natural habitats. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) made an impassioned plea for a new generation of clean coal, threw down a challenge to find effective clean-coal solutions and offered up the possibility of the greater use of carbon sequestration technology.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree(Mr. Newmark) rightly championed the pioneering scheme of Braintree district council, which offers council rebates for those householders who install cavity-wall insulation and other energy-saving measures. I very much hope that that initiative will be taken up not just by Conservative councils around the country, but by all councils, as it seems to be an excellent way in which just a small amount of money can trigger widespread changes in behaviour. Energy efficiency is practical and makes good economic sense.

Gregory Barker: I am aware that Woking has a long history of no overall control and that the leadership has ebbed and flowed between the Conservatives and the Liberals, and I stand corrected.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) made a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech and drew attention not only to the colder climate in Scotland, which necessitates much more heating, but to the limited access to gas, particularly in rural areas, and many other factors that make homes in Scotland particularly hard to heat. She rightly drew our attention to the menace of electrical appliances left on stand-by.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke(Mrs. Miller), who made a particularly powerful, lengthy and compelling speech, reminded us that climate change is an issue that we must all address. I am grateful to her for supporting my amendment, which will empower local authorities to consider both energy efficiency and microgeneration when discharging their functions, particularly in relation to planning. She is absolutely right: we must be more ambitious in reducing demand for electricity in new-build houses.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) played a thoughtful and positive part in the Standing Committee on the Bill and rightly pointed out that, on a per capita basis, we are a very significant emitter of global CO2 and that we must therefore play a global leadership role.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke for the Scottish National party, made a passionate and hard-hitting defence of the cross-party consensus on climate change. He and his party are a very important part of that agreement and helped pioneer that consensus, which we need to strengthen and develop. I welcome his profoundly sensible comments. It is just a shame that, to date, we have yet to welcome the Labour party into that consensus, but I am ever hopeful.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham(Dr. Blackman-Woods) made a fine speech, and I found myself nodding vigorously. She is absolute right to say that we must promote microgeneration to the mass market, to bring down costs and to make those technologies mainstream. I am grateful for her support for the amendment that I succeeded in making to the Bill, which now provides parish councils with the power to promote community energy schemes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, made an impressive and thoughtful speech about the measures in the Bill and in the energy review, and the need for transparency and rigour in auditing progress if the Bill is enacted. He pointed out the tremendous potential of microgeneration both to reduce fuel poverty and to promote renewables, energy efficiency and a culture of responsibility among consumers. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), too, made a thoughtful speech in support of microgeneration and the need to do more to encourage the rapid expansion of the industry.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke at length about the potential of microgeneration, but he misconstrued my comments last week about quality-of-life issues. I was trying to make the point that we cannot just see climate change through the narrow prism of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or a single Government Department. The policy review instigated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney(Mr. Cameron), which is being conducted with the able assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, is considering quality-of-life issues and the different implications of climate change—it does not just focus on narrow departmental functions. The hon. Member for Cheltenham was right that the lead must come from the private sector, and that we must not rely just on small amounts of money dripping from the Chancellor.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), in a forceful and articulate speech, reminded us all of the power of technology to fight CO2 emissions, giving a practical example from High Brooms. I, too, have recently installed solar panels on my house, and I was fascinated to hear about his constituent's experience. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) rightly raised the closure of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Monks Wood in his constituency. He is not just a doughty champion of his constituents' interests but of the cause of excellence in research, particularly on the impact of climate change on UK ecosystems. The closure of that laboratory is a huge step backwards in our understanding of the impact of climate change on UK biodiversity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) reminded us of the impact of climate change not just on the UK but on Africa, and our responsibility to take global leadership, particularly through the United Nations. It is not surprising, given his championing of climate change issues, that at the general election there was a well deserved swing in his favour. He spoke, too, about the tremendous pioneering work at Woking. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) drew our attention to the need for consensus. He highlighted the fact that politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the grand coalition on climate change has drawn in both the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and Donald Rumsfeld—not a combination that one often sees. He weighed up the scientific evidence in a splendid prebuttal of the arguments that were to be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and made a compelling case for microgeneration, not just to fight climate change but to enhance the UK security of supply, which is a serious consideration in long-term energy issues.
	It is sad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is not here to participate in our debate. He showed enormous skill, patience and tenacity in the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. I have found him not just professional but a joy to work with during the rollercoaster ride that the Bill has sometimes enjoyed through the House of Commons. It is a great tribute to him that the Bill is now approaching the end of its Third Reading. I send him our condolences on the sad loss that his family have suffered.
	About three weeks ago, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, I journeyed to about 600 miles of the North pole to look at the real and direct impact of climate change on the environment. Nothing more vividly illustrated the dramatic impact of climate change than the vast tracts of open sea that, until last year, were formerly ice. I probably speak for the whole House when I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that I really wish he would go to the North pole.
	In Svarlbard, I saw for myself the effects of global warming on the Scott-Turner glacier. At the Ny-Alesund Arctic research centre, I saw three more glaciers, all of them retreating at an accelerated rate. As has already been pointed out, the best overall measure for assessing changes in a glacier is its yearly mass balance. Two of the glaciers closest to Ny-Alesund have been measured for their mass balance for longer than any others in the high Arctic and their results have shown consistently negative mass balance almost every year since 1967—the year after I was born. The last five years have been the most negative and this pattern is being repeated on a far bigger scale all over the Arctic. Temperatures have risen by 2° C already in the past 30 years. Over that period, the average amount of summer sea ice has decreased by 1.3 million sq km. Both winter and summer sea ice are at their lowest levels since all records began.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney asked one of the scientists at Ny-Alesund what was to the north of where we were, and the answer came, "The sea and then the ice of the North pole—this year." My right hon. Friend asked, "Why do you say 'this year'?", and back came the answer, "Until now, it has only ever been ice."
	Some have argued that a series of warmings that took place in the 1930s show that the warming we are experiencing is nothing exceptional. I think that that is the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch advanced. It is true that some parts of the planet got warmer in that period, but not all. In fact, a number of Arctic research stations reported a drop in average temperatures in that time, whereas there has been a consistent rise in temperatures right across the Arctic in the current period of warming. The change in temperature predicted over the next 100 years is not2° C or 3° C, but 4° C to 7° C.
	The other thing that is lost in the arguments on climate change is that people focus just on the average temperature increase of a couple of degrees in coming years. However, there will be massive variations in different parts of the globe and, in some parts, the increase could be up to 14° C, and that would have quite cataclysmic effects. It is important that we do not get carried away and that we use measured scientific language but, by constantly focusing on the mean figure, we perhaps understate the scientific impact in the coming century.
	Climate change does not just affect the Arctic. In the Antarctic peninsula in 2002, an area of ice shelf about the size of the English county of Cornwall or, to put it in an international context, the US state of Rhode Island, disintegrated in just 35 days. Glacial coverage in Peru has fallen by a quarter in the last 25 years, and the famous snows of Kilimanjaro are disappearing before our eyes. Measured right across the globe, the 10 hottest years since records began have all been since 1990.
	Perhaps some of these facts, places and statistics seem a bit remote. However, I also refer to hurricane Katrina, water shortages in the UK leading to a hosepipe ban in April and the storm and flood losses in Britain that cost £6.2 billion between 1998 and 2003, double the amount of the previous five years. In London, the Thames barrier, which was designed just a couple of decades ago to be raised once every six years, is now being raised six times a year. The Government's chief scientific adviser has said that if a single flood broke through the Thames barrier, the damage could cost London £30 billion. That is 2 per cent. of our current GDP.
	We are witnessing not just gradual warming, but more and more unusual and unpredictable weather events. According to the international insurance firm Munich Re, before 1987 there was just one weather event worldwide that caused an insured loss of more than £1 billion. Since 1987, there have been 46.
	Those who say that all this has nothing to do with mankind should check the facts. There is a clear correlation between increases in global temperatures and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. For billions of years, the world benefited from a natural greenhouse effect, which kept global temperatures about 30(o )warmer than they would have otherwise been, but since the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million and, in parallel, global temperatures have been rising fast.

Malcolm Wicks: To give other hon. Members a chance to participate in the debate, and in the interests of energy efficiency, I shall make a brief speech.
	The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has thanked many people in a courteous manner and has acknowledged the contributions that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I thank him for that. He thanked so many people that I thought he had received the microgeneration Oscar, such was the fulsomeness of his tributes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and the House has offered him its sympathy at this difficult time. He was dedicated to getting the Bill to this stage in its consideration, and it has been a great pleasure working with him. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has also played a major role.
	I pay tribute to those who served in Committee and to the Opposition spokesmen for the constructive engagement that has characterised the debates. I believe that together we have turned a good and well-intentioned Bill into an important measure. We have had a good debate today. It stands in contrast to the slightly foolish filibustering that we experienced on two Fridays, which does the reputation of the House no favours.
	Perhaps I mentioned this in Committee, but I should declare an interest. Currently I have a planning application for a micro wind turbine for my own home before my local council.
	By supporting the Bill, the Government have shown our continuing commitment to tackling climate change. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, climate change is without doubt the major long-term threat facing our planet. We have heard about melting ice caps and violent weather extremes. These are no longer possible future events; they are happening now. Every week, authoritative scientific studies warn that without urgent action we may be having a taste for the future. In terms of rhetoric, it is difficult to exaggerate the issue.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked, "What do you do when you are standing on the edge of a cliff?" I am glad that at that stage he resisted the temptation to urge our nation to take a giant step forward.
	Combating climate change is one of the UK'stop priorities. It has been so during our recentpresidencies of both the G8 and the European Union. It is why we continue to work with the international community to take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy has a key role to play in reducing emissions. Big renewables, large-scale wind developments and tidal wave power are growing parts of our energy mix. However, the Bill is about microgeneration, which as a group of technologies has the feeling of a sector that is on the verge of becoming part of the mainstream. All it needs is help.
	We have supported these technologies through a variety of measures, not least the £53 million in capital grants since the year 2000, to be followed by a further £80 million over the next three years for a variety of projects, but with some emphasis on getting microgeneration into our schools. That is not only for the energy supply that it can bring to schools, but because of the educational value.
	The publication of our microgeneration strategy at the end of March clearly demonstrates our view that these technologies have the potential to play a significant role in the energy future.
	At times this has been a wide-ranging debate, encompassing nuclear energy and many other things. It has been so wide-ranging from time to time that the Bill itself was even mentioned. The debate was that wide in scope. We know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the energy review at the end of last year, and ministerially he asked to lead it. Contrary to what many have read in the press, the outcome is not yet settled. I can assure the House that we have an open mind on many of the big issues. There is no one question facing our energy strategy. There is certainly no one answer or silver or uranium bullet.
	Achieving our energy objectives requires action at all levels. We all have a responsibility for safeguarding our planet. The action that we take as individuals can make a real difference. That is why the Bill is important. Some important duties are given to Government in reporting terms. More significantly, the Bill opens doors for action at individual and community level. By enabling microgenerators to access more easily the rewards that they deserve for generating their electricity, by giving parish councils an important improvement to the Bill, by giving powers to promote microgeneration and energy efficiency, and by giving Government the duty to promote renewable heat and community energy schemes, we are setting out the sort of measures that can make a real difference.
	At the end of a good and important debate, I commend the Bill to the House.

Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), for that explanation. I viewed new clause 1 as a useful probing measure. Like a lot of nonlawyers, when I see something in a Bill that says "without reasonable excuse" I begin to worry about the extent of "reasonable excuse" and how that could impact on various people. It is important.
	This Bill, which I believe the Government wanted and which should have been introduced in Government time, not in private Members' time, is a re-run of the Bill that went through the Scottish Parliament by virtue of the Scotland Act 1998. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that, to speed up the drafting, he put a large amount of that Bill into this Bill. The problem is that the Scottish Parliament spent much longer dealing with the matter. In fact, during stage two, as I believe it is called in Scotland, 240 clauses were considered. A number of concerns and grey areas arise. That is why new clause 1 and perhaps the other amendments are important. We need to clarify where the barrier of reasonableness is.
	The matter was raised with me by a farmer in my constituency who owns farms in an upland landscape of heather moor. He was concerned because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, those moors are burned in patches in the course of the year to improve grazing or, if there are shooting interests, to assist with the rearing of grouse. That can cause disputes. Some people believe that heather burning is detrimental to wildlife management. Others think that it is essential and important, so there is a dispute.
	The farmer whom I mentioned asked me what would happen if someone thought that there was a fire on the moor that was damaging the peat or vegetation and therefore the wildlife and called out the fire brigade. The firemen would arrive and the farmer or landowner would say, "I am doing a perfectly normal, reasonable activity. Why are you here?" They may say, "We insist on being here because we must put the fire out." The farmer may say, "You must stop because this has been official to my business" and a dispute could arise. Whether that would fall within the defence that the farmer had reasonable excuse for obstructing the fire engines I do not know. That is a worrying point. It could be a matter of opinion; there may be a lack of clarity.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) mentioned the recent case where an elderly colonel was dragged from his house by the fire brigade and prevented physically from going in to rescue some of his family's heirlooms and possessions. The colonel took the view that it was safe to go in but the fire service, with its possibly right emphasis on saving life, not property, prevented him from doing so. He may have put up a struggle and determined to go in—I believe that it was his decision whether to take the risk to rescue his possessions. Again, if he landed up in the dock on the basis of obstructing the fire service, I and I think most people would consider that to be deeply unfair. Therefore, there is a considerable number of grey areas in the Bill.
	I have talked about heather burning and a private house burning but one of the things that irritates people most is rubbish burning. We often see the illegal burning of tyres and other items on certain sites. That may be an environmental offence, but if the firemen arrived to deal with that and the people responsible for the fire obstructed them, would they be in breach of the provision, even though it was on their land and no criminal offence was involved in burning those tyres, although it may have been an environmental offence, which would result in an environmental prosecution? That is another grey area that we should clarify before the Bill proceeds.

REMAINING PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

Pharmaceutical Labelling (Warning of Cognitive Function Impairment) Bill

Protection of Runaway and Missing Children Bill

Protection of Private Gardens (Housing Development) Bill

Care of Older and Incapacitated People (Human Rights) Bill

Fireworks (Amendment) Bill

Energy Bill

Food Supplements (European Communities Act 1972 Disapplication) Bill

Rosie Winterton: We are examining a number of considerations. We examine the results of the consultation. We take into account the views of Members as part of that consultation process. It is important as well that we consider the criteria that we have set out to ensure that where we are looking for improvements through reconfigurations, they are met.
	My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the increase in spending on the NHS under this Government. That has been reflected at local level, not only through increased investment but through improvements in patient care. There have been reduced waiting times and improved patient outcomes. As he said, that is thanks to the extra investment and the dedication and commitment of his local staff. There has been extra investment, but I am aware also that despite that the health economy in East Sussex is facing some financial difficulties.
	My hon. Friend knows that strategic health authorities within this context are responsible for delivering overall financial balance for their local health communities. We want to see them working in partnership with local health providers to determine how best to use the funds allocated.
	I understand that in helping the SHA to do that,3 per cent. of all PCT budgets in Surrey and Sussex are to be top-sliced for 2006-07 and 2007-08 to help create a reserve so that the SHA can record financial balance across the region. I am informed that the Surrey and Sussex SHA is working to define a process and timetable for repayment of this funding where this is considered appropriate. The criteria for this repayment will be based on whether each PCT is already receiving its fair share of funding under the capitation formula and whether the individual health community has received a net benefit from the funding.
	In the meantime, I am informed that the SHA will be considering how it can assist areas such as Hastings and Bexhill with capital resources to develop the local health infrastructure and to recognise the initial sacrifice being made in terms of revenue allocation.
	My hon. Friend asked for further information on this issue. I understand that Candy Morris, the chief executive of Surrey and Sussex SHA, will be writing to him with further details of the SHA's overall financial plan and the process in relation to this issue.
	I now respond to my hon. Friend's comments on the future of the Eastbourne district general and Conquest hospitals. As he is aware, the Surrey and Sussex SHA is currently working with local people, local government and other stakeholders to produce plans for modern health care services that are clinically and financially sustainable. This work began in 2005. The SHA is looking to ensure that local people and stakeholders have opportunities to get involved in developing the plan at the outset and on a continuing basis. These plans have been discussed with partners, patients and the public. I understand that they will be supported by a discussion document that is due to be published by the SHA towards the end of May.
	In the meantime, I understand that work on the options for settings of care will continue, and this work will include an analysis of clinical and economic viability, of access and travel issues, of deliverability and of how the options fit with national policy. I understand that the SHA expects to begin full public consultation on the developed options in the autumn.
	I cannot give my hon. Friend the specific assurances that he has asked for, but I will ensure that the strategic health authority is made aware of the comments that he has made today. I hope that I have been able to give him some reassurance, however. I know that he has been in touch with Lord Warner about the reconfiguration. The SHA will write to him with further details of the financial aspects of the matter, and I will ensure that it is made aware of all the comments that have been made today about the proposed local changes.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.